Birds are warm blooded like mammals, and not like reptiles. It is easier for you to not acknowledge warm bloodedness as a clade because it throws the whole thing out of whack.
Rather you would rather invent a story about warm bloodedness evolving twice that admit yoiur cladistics is whacky science.
"This incompatibility with the Linnaean taxonomy model led to an initial rift, not entirely healed, between the cladistic and Linnean schools of thought. Extreme cladists challenged the validity of Linnean taxa such as the Reptilia. Because birds, although descended from reptiles, are not themselves considered to be reptiles, cladists demanded that the taxon Reptilia be dismantled: a request that taxonomists were unwilling to heed. This stand-off was eventually resolved to a degree by the construction of the term 'paraphyletic' to describe closely related groups which included most but not all of the descendants of a common ancestor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly
What characheteristics must a fossil have to link it to other life is yoiur problem pal. All I know is that you have zilch, squat, zero evidence that any creature poofed into a lungfish or anything else in the Cambrian.
Again these are the facts..the sudden appearance of vertabrae. The cover stories that are meant to turn the obvious evidence for a creative day into an evolutionary mystery are your theories and basically that's all you've got, because the facts support creation as demonstrated.
No there is not 5my of evidence at all. What there is.... is 5my of guesswork.
My assertion is .. Evos use every variation of ape to try to show some human line of decent.
My proof is.... I will AGAIN restate you have stuff all chimpanzee ancestral fossils that illustrate the line of chimp decent to our common ancestor. I have used this FACT to support my assertion that all the chimp ancestors have been misplaced into Mankinds ancestry.
There is more glory for your researchers to claim the find of a new human ancestor than to find a chimps ancestor, which could be one reason.
If you would like to know how to debate, as you suggest I cannot, then the idea is to REFUTE this claim by posting a plethora of ancestral chimp fossils demonstrating the ancestry of chimps back to our common ancestor. This will prove I am wrong on that point.
To squark off beligerent accusations against me while you offer no evidence of refute the FACTS of my claim demonstrates to one and all how hopelessly desperate and void your post truly is.
No I'd say the FACT that your researchers have put up comparisons from 2% to 6% chimp human comparisons whilst indeed the chimp and human genome is 30% compariatively different suggests yur researchers have produced research that is biased and basically says nothing about our ancestry to chimps.
Looking to one small part of the genome, MTDNA, the cells powerhouse, would have to be the most simplistic, misrepresentative method of comparison available and the only part of the entire genome that yeilds such close similarities.
Here is my research evidence to demonstrate that in actual fact there is a 30% comparative difference between the chimpanzee and a human being. This 30% does not include the 10% larger chimp genome, not the different surface composition, so in actual fact it should be even more.
"Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome
So we are made out to be chimp relatives whether our difference is 2%, 6% or 30%. These FACTS not only demonstrate 'some lack of veracity' on the part of evolutionists claims but actually demonstrates that there is NO veracity in these comparisons.
Indeed misrepresent my words as much as you have time to waste. However the fact that there are only chimps and humans around means you lot are stuck with FACTS that need your convoluted theories of maybe, perhaps, likely and hopefully, to explain away the obvious evidence that supports creation.
The FACT that you have stuff all ancestors for chimps further supports my claim. Can you refute that with any thing more than beligerance and empty words?
My assertion that all your ancestors outside of homo sapiens are varieties of apes, some flat faced apes such as Lluc, 12myo, changes in dentition that reflect diet rather than ancestry is just as good an argument as the mess you can present.
I have presented evidence from within your own biased research and can still defend a creationist claim
Hopefully you are aware of your excuses as to why no half breeds exist today. There are a few of these EXCUSES so you get to pick which one you support. HAPPY GUESSING...!!!!
Well a point to make is that evos cannot have their eggs in every basket. That starts looking like a biased rubbish support.
The researchers that found this metatarsel have themselves asserted it is perfectly modern. NO feet have ever been found for Australepithicus, only this little bone dated to 3mya. It can be used for whatever support I or others want to make of it. 3mya in Africa Mr Ples was just an ape, like Lucy.
Evos HAVE TO SAY this belongs to Lucy's kind because modern humans are not supposed to be there yet. This is an assertion in line with a preconceived paradigm.
Lucy, had tree dwelling hands, small brain and all the hallmarks of being a variety of ape. Ardi has ape feet. Hence in the space of 1 million years feet totally evolved from ape to human. I suggest even by your own evolutionary assertions, be they gradualistic or punctuated, this would appear to be impossible.
A further anomoly to me is that Ardi does not have gracile chimpy hands, but has chimp feet. So it appears that Ardi left the trees in favour of bipedalism, then evolved back into a tree dweller then evolved back to bipedalism. No wonder evos are now disputing his ansestry to humans and are throwing Ardi into the woopsie bin!
Further again to all that there is research by your own that suggests homo erectus died out elsewhere prior to humans arriving from Africa. In Africa you have Mrs Ples that is just an ape. You have Turkana Boy found with no feet or hands(how unfortunate) that has an ape head, arms that are 3/4 the way to the knees and I have no idea why creationists call it human. I now disagree. It is also just a variety of ape that may have undergone some adaptive environmental change such as diet to account for jaw change. There are flat faced apes such as Lluc, Anoiapithecus brevirostris, and Turkana Boy is more likely to be Llucs decendant than a human ancestor.
You have multiple australopithecines, homo erectus and various homonids all over the world that were exposed to different environmental conditions, variance in genetic drift and still none of them were able to survive untill today and every single branching line has gone extinct. If just one branch had of survived in an intermediate form, you would then have solid proof of evolution. However, you don't.
So, ...I can provide support for my claim that the reason why no half breed apey humans are with us to day is because there never were any. I have provided my support for this assertion on the basis of your so called intermediates not being intermediates at all, but rather varieties of apes eg Lluc. Supportive of this is that you lack fossil evidence for the ancestry of chimps supposedly evolving along side us.
I feel my assertion and accompanying scientific support provided above and throughout this thread is at least as good as any of at least 3 evolutionary explanations as to why all homonids and other supposed Homo Erectus species throughout the world became extinct and did not continue in that form.
I am entitled to my views and interpretation of the available evidence and you can only refute them with other similarly theoretical evidence. My view is as unfalsifiable as any other.
Some Christians say that Jesus was a pedophile. Some Christians say that Jesus was actually a goat. Some Christians say that all Christians are made of chocolate.
It's AMAZING all the things that "Some guys say" when you don't have to actually back up the claims.
I have a plenty... go back and look for yourself.
As I stated previously your continual ignorance of my argument and inability to refute my assertions is becoming more and more obvious.
So this time you chose to nit pick on my pointing out my assertion that Turkana Boy is an ape is not generally accepted by many creationists. Rather that refute the body or points to my argument you chose this to be your big come back and rant about that.
I will not reply to you anymore if you are unable to mount at least some reasonable reply.
If your Erectus are all just flat faced apes that resemble Lluc the obvious ape with a flat face then effectively you have no half human- apes or part human apes or quarter apes or any ape becoming human, nor intermediate beween any common ancestor and anything. Effectivly, you have found apes and humans. This is why there are no intermediates with us today.
I am telling you that your Australepthicenes are apes like Lluc. I have provided the link to the research re Lluc. It demonstrates a facial morphology tha could well be in line with Australopithecus. I have provided EVIDENCE of an ape that dates back 12my to support my assertion.
Turkana Boy is not an African human or part human or near human. Turkana Boy is an African ape that is not and never was on its' way to humanity and likely looks similar to Anoiapithecus brevirostris..
Turkana Boy is an ape. There is a side view of it in the link below.
Now I am telling you that my hypothesis and interpretation of the data at hand is that all these so called Homo erectus such as Turkana Boy were a variation of ape. These did not look human at all but rather resembled the flat faced Lluc, that is obviously still an ape, just an ape and not in any way becoming human.
Now rather than waste my time with fruitlessness why do you not refute one of my major points with a little more intelligence that just offering a belligerant attitute.
Go back and read what I had to say and stay on track, otherwise we are done!
And you make that assertion by proclaiming everything an "ape".
Setting aside your continued inability to grasp the definition of the word "ape", we'll go on the assumption that you actually mean that these previous species are not in the line of descent.
So, your assertion is that species which existed PRIOR to humans are not related to humans no matter how many features they have in common.
I love this belligerance. How dare you say I cannot grasp the defenition of ape. Just because evolutionists see an ape when they look in the mirror does not mean I need to disengage my common sense and see myself as an animal. The classification of mankind as apes is the result of your ridiculous taxonomic system, not baraminology.
What do you mean have in common. Because we were alive. A chimp has a similar skeleton now to humans and looks absolutely nothing like a human. As I said it is brain washing that causes an evolutionist to see an ape in their reflecton. I can contemplate the hereafter, and have superior reasoning and perceptual ability, and best of all I do not have long hair growing all over my body. I know I am not an ape. Too bad for you.
So, you are claiming that Homo Erectus, which walked upright, fashioned and used tools and tended fires is _no relation_ to humans but is instead a special kind of monkey which does things that no other monkey does.
Does this assertion answer questions of morphology? No. Does this assertion answer questions of DNA? No. Does this assertion answer questions of ERVs? No. Does this assertion answer questions about why you can line up the fossils either chronologically OR morphologically and get the same order? No.
Oh no that is not what I said at all. What I have said previously is that the use and control of fire is a complex task. There were no matches. magnifying glass or lighters for erectus. He would have had to have worked out how to use flintstone or stick rubbing, a complex task. I alledge, with its small brain even if I believed it was on its way to humanity, erectus was not smart enough to use and control fire.
What your researchers have found are either fires started naturally, or with hearths, evidence that someone smarter was about at the same time. eg human beings.
As for walking upright there is not better term than to say " What Rubbish". That is flavour of the month. Not too long ago bipedalism was theorised to be connected to brain increase. That has been proven wrong. Neanderthal was also once pictured to be a stooped ape based on its fossils, but now stand perfectly upright. Your reconstructions are biased. Besides chimps can walk upright regardless of being knuckle walkers, it has squat to do with becoming human.
I have given proof that there was flat faced apes around 12mya. Flatter facial features are NOT a sign of becoming human. Erectus has heavy brows, pronaganathism, long arms, large bones, large rounded rib cage. Why I'd say he probably looks just like Lluc.
DNA..I have provided evidence from the Chimpanzee genome project that chimps and humans differ by at least 30%. The simply and obvious thing is that some creature on this earth had to be more similar to us than the rest. It happens to be chimps.
In fact chimps continue to be less and less like us the more they look. The arising of a single cell is in the rubbish bin now. Do not forget with the advent of HGT you now have multiple primitive cells arising. These poofed into existence individually and yet were so genetically similar that they were able to horizonatlly transfer genes. Life on this planet will only ever have the same basic genetic blueprint. It does not show we all came from the same cell. In fact your research now shows we didn't. LUCA is dead and so are your genomic comparisons as HGT has confounded your models into a complexity meltdown.
"Chimpanzees seem almost human, and scientists have maintained for decades that chimps are, in fact, 98.5 percent genetically identical to humans.
The very fact that a figure of 98.5% is proposed in itself suggests the proposterousness of using this as any valid comparison. Truly, evolutionists have been messmerized into believing this is mean to show how alike we are. It is ridiculous. Rather 30%, seem more believable, but also that we are not so much like chimps genomically at all.
ERV's show nothing more than some species were in the same place and were exposed to some bug.
"Within the published human genome sequence, there are over 98,000 human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), but all are defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions. No replication-competent HERVs have been identified to date (26, 31, 33, 35), with only one (K113) with open reading frames for all genes (35), and thus their activity and infectivity is thought to have decreased substantially from levels occurring during earlier periods of primate evolution (1, 23, 34). " http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/79/19/12507
Humans can catch Hendra virus but are not closely related to bats or horses. This is just straw grabbing nonsense, made from convoluted mathematical models that mean nothing in the end. You have nonsense mutations and major deletions and it is all guesswork, assumpions and down hill from there.
I understand what you lot assert with the points you put to me. However, one can interpret information more than one way. That is obvious by the way your researchers can disagree on so many things yet still all believe 'it all evolved'.
Morphology only works for you when you want it too. When it doesn't you plead homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution. The same goes for your genomics.
We are similar to all life because there is only one model for life, RNA's and DNA and it is a wonderful design. It is not about similarity. It is about the differences, gene expression and resulting proteins and gene families.
The genetic comparisons your researchers use are very simplistic. They take a handfull of enzymes, stain them with dyes and use this nonsense as the basis to describe and compare an incredibly complex genomic system. Your reserchers have far to go. The Pergalin research, in my link "you can't make monkeys out of us" is one example of better imaging and showed huge genomic regions that were vastly different between chimp and human. Then the Y chromosome is remarkably different in the male chimp and human.
I have refuted morphology, DNA comparison and ERV's as being any more than theoretical assumptions based on further assumptions and convoluted models and in no way appear to detract from my assertion that there were never any chimp/human intermediates.
Creationists may not have all the answers either. However belligerance will not highlight the wisdom of your evolutionary stance.
Dr Adequate, that is not the picture of LLuc at all.
Since Mazzy keeps going on about "Lluc" (Anoiapithecus brevirostris), here's a picture.
So you are happy to accept a creature that is reconstructed from a few bones when it fits with your paradigm. But you don't when it doesn't suit you. Isn't that the sort of thing you lot say creationists do, pick and choose and then ignore the rest?
LLuc is a flat faced ape. It is your evolutionary researchers that describe it as such. They also specifically state that it is not in the homo line and yet has morphology only compared to homo.
"ScienceDaily (June 2, 2009) — Researchers have discovered a fossilized face and jaw from a previously unknown hominoid primate genus in Spain dating to the Middle Miocene era, roughly 12 million years ago. Nicknamed "Lluc," the male bears a strikingly "modern" facial appearance with a flat face, rather than a protruding one. The finding sheds important new light on the evolutionary development of hominids, including orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans." http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htm
If you do not like what your researchers are saying then you had best go argue with them and make your case. For now we have a flat faced ape dated to 12mya...like it or not.....it could be the ancestor of any other ape with similar features.
I have no idea what you are going on about re Australians. Australian Aborigines are humans that have adapted to their environment. When Australia was discovered they were no hairy half human apes here either but human beings just like you and me. Are you trying to suggest Australian Aborigines are anything but fully human? You seem to go on about them alot.
Re ERV's Some people have claimed that there are viruses inserted into the genomes of all apes, including humans, that got into their genome long before any of the apes of today or humans existed. Probably so far back that it was when they were all still more like monkeys, the so called "Old World" monkeys. Since all these animals have the same viral infections, it has been claimed by some evolutionists that they must have a common ancestor.
There is no evidence anywhere that one species comes out of another species anyways. Viruses can be uncannily acquired independently and arrive in the same places of the genome depending on the virus. Certain viruses prefer certain places in the genome and certain chromosomes. An example would be HIV, it infects humans and chimps in the exact same location of the chromosome. Also the Adenovirus does the same. Having the same retrovirus in different species shows nothing about common ancestory, all it proves is that different species share similar homogeny.
However, in 2007 Retroviruses were found in Chimpanzees, Old world monkeys, and African apes that are not found in Humans or Asian Apes. One of them is called PTERV1 I believe.
According to the phylogenetic tree Chimps are closer to Humans than to Gorillas, they claim to have overvaluing evidence supporting this claim, if this claim is true, and if evolutionists interpreted ERVs correctly, then Gorillas and Chimps can not share an ERV, unless, this ERV is also present in humans, therefore finding an ERV in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans should falsify evolution, or at least the argument on ERVs, however there is at least 1 ERV from the family K that is present in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans, these ERVs are in orthologous position, therefore this fact should falsify evolution.
Evolutionists claim that this does not falsify evolution because maybe a retrovirus infected the common ancestor of gorillas, humans and chimps, but humans lost the ERV recently, however this makes the argument on ERVs impossible to falsify, besides evolutionists fail to explain how many of this irregularities are allowed, without contradicting evolution, they fail to provide a process in which an ERV can disappear, they fail to provide a rate in which ERVs disappear, besides if one human somehow lost an ERV, only some of the descendents of this human should lack this ERV, but not all humans.
Here is support from your own evo researchers that there are ERV's that humans and other primates do not share.
So if you want to get around believing ERV's prove you are an ape I respect your wish to do so. You should not infer that I cannot back my claim because indeed I can and from your own body of research.
ERVs are just another unfalsifiable claim, where you invent more convoluted nonsense and hypthesis to explain what isn't there that should be eg PTERV1, and is there and shouldn't be eg genetic homoplasy.
However to continue to suggest by inuendo or otherwise that creationists have no basis to question your evolutionary assertions and hypothesis around ERV's is comparable to asking a creationists to shut down the intelligence, common sense and reasoning ability they were given.
ERV's do not demonstrate common descent. Now you toddle off and find some research that refutes the stuff I posted that states in black and white that some ERV's in apes are not found in humans or convince me that the excuses these researchers invent to explain it have any veracity outside of dream time.
Theodoric.. I have said that if you want to see yourself as an ape and you are satisfied with the convoluted falable theories to support it, I will not stand in your way.
I am not an ape just because your silly researchers have classed humans as such.
The Genus Homo is unlike any other taxon at Genus rank in that it is the only genus where one of the species described within are so obviously different from the others.
Evolutionary convergence, is just another myth to explain what is there that shouldn't be. Genetic and morphological homoplasy is another...evos have lots of excuses invented under the guise of theory to explain the unexpected and unpredicted eg chimp/human Y chromosome='accelerated' evolution. You must continue to invent these excuses to keep TOE alive. I understand.
I understand and have empathy for you and admire the depths of your and others unwavering faith in TOE in the face of contradictions, the death of much of your evidence eg LUCA, Ardi,etc and continual changes eg punctuated equilibrium the luck of genetic drfit, epigentic Mendellian style inheritance, HGT in Prokaryotes etc. You are very faithful to your cause.
There was a whole reply to Nuggin explaining that I no longer agree with many creationists that suggest Turkana Boy is human. I see Turkana apes no, that I have seen a side view and read more about the pelvis, arms, nose.
If changing ones mind in the face of finding more information kills one's theory then TOE died long ago and carries on in a zombie state...with life lines like convergent evolution, homoplasy, accelerated evolution, punctuated evolution, Lamarkian style epigentic inheritance, junk DNA no longer junk at all etc etc etc
Are you unable to further refute the main points of my arguments? Such asides tend to support the theory that likely maybe and possibly you can't.
The overall conclusion for me is that nothing I have asserted or supported by way of research proves that macroevolution from bacteria to human did not occur. However what I see is that the door is open for many other hypothesis of the data found. I beleive much of what you call evidence for common decent is not evidence at all, more like evidence in evolution.
I also use assumptions (creation) as your researchers do (common descent). I, and other creationists, also offer interpretations of the evidence and refute the veracity of that which I/they choose to ignore due to a lack of validity which can be defended eg ERV's, DNA similarity
You have explanations based on theories and interpretation of research findings, as to why no tribe remains that appears ape like in appearance. I also have explanations based on theories and interpretations that support the reason why there are no such creatures today is that there never were any. We can put up theoretic evidence against theoretical evidence endlessly and it will be no more than facing off one theory or interpretation against another.
So your choosing to harp and strain points with no substance is truly a waste of time, just like Nuggins. I am as free to change my theories as your evo researchers are to change theirs on everything apart from 'it all evolved'. If not then TOE is long dead.
This is a picture of Ardi in the link below. Clealy look at the toes. On one side Ardi's right the foot is pictured as an apes. On the left with toes close together. This very much resembles any representations and reconstruction of feet and likely hands. It is easy to represent or misrepresent the fossil evidence according to assumptions.
Apart from the arms and a few skull features Ardi looks just like Turkana boy. If you visualise the Turkana skull tilted back just a few degrees, it is even more obvious That Turkana Boy has pronounced ape like pronagnathism and is therefore outside the range of human variation.
Seriously, these creatures, whatever they are, are not mid species. Turkana Boy may have some features that are comparable to humans now, but that does not demonstrate common descent. There are many similarities between todays chimps and us anyway. There are more differences, regardless of all the intellectulisation of the arguments. Too bad for you that makes us apes in your eyes.
Turkana Boy is sufficiently different to suggest it is not human. Chimp, gorrilla and human skeletons are all similar to begin with. However the flesh resulting from expression of genes have expressed radically different the two species, one of whom dominates the world and is slowly irradicating its supposed sister and cousin species. That said, there is no reason to suggest that the reason there are no Lucy's, Ardis or Turkana Boys around today is because there never were any ape-human intermediates. It is as good an assumption as yours.
If you wish to put much weight on this kind of evidence and other genomic evidence such as ERV's, then you go ahead and do so. I feel it is worth little weight if any. Rather I would believe in the creation by a powerful being that created or caused the singularity and possibly the multiple dimensions required to support such a theory and Big Bang. There is no end to His power and He certainly could have caused the coalescence of kinds into being if He so chose to do so.
Creationists are providing just a few more possibilities to add to the plethora already proposed for any evolutionary question or conundrum.
If you wish to be nast, desperate and offer simplistic refutes, then I'd say ERVs being a support for ancestry to apes has just been flushed down the toilet. ...or do ERV's only matter when the results suit you?
Which scenario/excuse do you put your faith in?
Basically your whole post was basically hot air and attitude with nothing worth refuting.
You've said that the chimpanzee is the primate that most resembles human beings. We can all see the differences between those two, as well as the similarities. But if Ardi and Turkana boy are both apes (again, using your sense of the word), they should at least look as ape-like as a chimp. Thus, Ardi, Turkana Boy and the chimpanzee would all clearly be apes, and being apes, would all be more like each other than they would human beings.
No your researchers said that a chimp most resembles us. Some researchers say the orangutan most resembles us.
Ardi most certainly resembles an ape more than a human.
Turkana Boy may not be just like the apes today or the fossil is misrepresented in its construction. There are no fingers or toes. The point is the skull looks like an ape because it is an ape. It has a jutting jaw, large upper leg bones that look nothing like the human. Don't forget Neanderthal used to be a bent over ape man in most pictures, now he is as upright as you or I.
Turkana Boy has narrower thoracic vertebrae and the face is highly prognathic (projecting), and it has a receding mandibular symphysis with no chin and distinct eyebrow ridges. He was some sort of ape. Look at the top of Turkana Boys leg bones and how wide they are like a gorilla's. The poke out of the side past the end of the hip bones. I do not know what your researchers have done with these sifted fossil pieces, or even if the bones are from the one creature, but it is not human.
"I think it's equally likely, or perhaps even preferable, that it is an ancestral form or an early representative of the African great ape" group—that "it's not necessarily uniquely linked to humans," Harrison said of Ardipithecus in the podcast."
The placement of a hole at the base of the skull, known as the foramen magnum, also might suggest Ardi as an upright walker, and thus perhaps a solid hominin. But in looking to other apes, "this feature is more broadly associated with differences in head carriage and facial length, rather than uniquely with bipedalism,"